[Sorry for the double post, but the two answers clearly couldn't be put together]
I would say in that aspect, Kojima agreeing on Ebert main points was quite a funny thing to watch (especially with Kojima games in mind).
Oh, but I agree on Kojima view, and mostly for the same reasons than him.
I don't remember what artist said, in substance, that he don't want to be seen as an artist, because art is something too serious and he want to continue having fun doing what he do, not starting to go to works each time he open the door of his workshop ; perhaps was it Dali but I'm really not sure, but he surely wasn't an English speaker since the English word imply the notion of "work" and this thought would have felt weird in his own mind.
In a way, the same could apply to Kojima. He's someone serious, he works serious and hard. But like he's doing what he like, driven by his passion, it don't feel like working. He follow his thoughts, (globally speaking) he do what he want without carrying this much about the consequences. What wouldn't be possible anymore if he was suddenly doing arts.
The problem if video games starts to be effectively seen as art would be the same than with Cinema ; you would have the masterpieces, the failed attempt, and the byproducts. And like for Cinema, if your game was described as a masterpiece, you would generally end with less players than if he's seen as a byproducts. This while the "failed attempt" would have almost no public at all ; not interesting enough for those who want a masterpiece, and not fun enough for the public that seek entertainment of a byproduct.
Starting there, doing a video game wouldn't anymore be a question of passion or attempt of the public, but fear of the critics. And since nowadays video games are near to cost as much as movies, while having a smaller public, it would kill creativity, by fear to not sell enough because your game will be seen as elitist.
Look at the number of threads here that goes along the lines of "what game should I make to earn a tons of money". It's the same kind of problem, just seen from another point of view. This kind of authors aren't making the game they want, letting the game find its public, they are trying to target a specific public, following specific constraints. And the same would happen if video games was seen as art. Either you'll target the masterpiece, and therefore tried to be too serious, or you would try to sell a lot, and therefore avoid at all cost being serious, by fear to be "too serious".
And since one could wonder, "if you agree with Kojima, why are you disagreeing with Ebert", I'll also quickly address that :
Kojima consider that video games aren't an art, but don't close the gate ; his view still permit to a game, now or in the future, to be seen as a piece of art. This while Ebert clearly state that it's totally impossible for a video games to be a piece of art. And it's on this particular point that I disagree with Ebert.
I played 2 of the 3 games you cite (only played the 1st Mass effect, then they changed the formula, didn't like it), and it doesn't strike me at all with deep aftertought.
Well, for
Mass Effect, the reason why I pointed the third is because it's explicit in it. At the end of the game they explain clearly what was their intent, going as far as saying that the right answer to the final choice should be to let humanity become more and more mechanic. As for the
Deus Ex, I think that it's
Human Revolution that express it the more clearly ; but unlike BioWare, they don't try to enforce a right answer.
I would add multi-branching narrative are nothing new and have been done in litterature countless of time, captivated lot of kids (myself included), but were a bit let down as a childish genre for a good reason.
I'm aware of that. There's somewhere on this forum a (probably long) comment I made that is going in the history of CYOA books. My memory being a mess today, I'll not try to give an exact date for the first one officially known (because proved as having existed) but it was in the 19th century. And there were surely some already in the Ancient Greece, but probably seen as a form of distraction and/or entertainment, both for the author and the reader, what prevented them to reach posterity.
If anything, constant player input play against video games as an art form, as it continuously dilutes its substance.
But isn't interactive computer art, art ?
It's the main reason why I disagree with Ebert, his absolutism in the definition of what is art. The definition was implicitly changed so many times in history ; art being purely descriptive, then figurative, and now it can even be abstract.
This fallback on what is said by this artist I still don't remember the name, regarding art being something too serious ; what also matches your saying that artists talking about art would be way more rude. Some take art way too seriously, and from my point of view it have always killed art by putting aside everything that isn't true to the actual definition. I'm pretty sure that abstract art is far to be something new ; it just can't be something new in regard of human history. It was just rejected as being art. At those times an artist had to live, and the only way for him to live was to have either a patron or, mainly for painters, clients that ask him for a painting. What imply that they had to follow the rules, or die starving ; I don't see a king asking Picasso during his cubism period to paint his portrait.
Therefore, any art that wasn't true to the definition simply disappeared every time an artist tried it. At least until the early 20th century, moment where the public finally had its word to say. Whatever if critics discard the creations as being art. As long as there were a public to buy his creation, or even just to attend his exposition, an artist can live, exist, and in the end possibly enforce his creations as being art. It's what happened for impressionism by example, and it's far to be the sole artistic movement that benefit from this.
That's why most 'games' that's try to be foremost artistic substance are walking sim and generally fail both way, as good game or good substance.
Why should video games not be art simply because those who tried effectively failed each time ? It closing the door to those who didn't, or will not, tried, but yet succeed(ed). After all, Ebert say it himself when talking about cave painting, they didn't tried to do art, they just did it. The same can apply to video games.
People that want video games to be art will tell you that this 'interactive museum' is worthy of the finest art. I think it's foolish at best.
I agree on this, but mostly because I don't consider video games as being art by themselves. As I said above, it's the absolutism of the definition, and its consequences as stating that "it will never happen", that I disagree with, not the rest.
Think about this :
Cinema is art, and there were attempt, more or less successful, for interactive movies. Nowadays technology is near to permit those attempt to finally become successful. I mean, movies are numeric now. You can have a set of two buttons on each seat of the theater, and a computer that will count the votes and play the next scene according to it.
Take "Independence Day" (the original). Will Goldblum take his bike and go to the White House, or will he try, again and again, to reach his ex wife by phone ? First choice, the movie like we know it (at least until the next choice). Second choice, someone in the White House have a sudden fear, the president still escape death, but Goldblum have to find a way to reach him. And so on.
A CYOA-like movie is totally possible nowadays. It would cost a shit tons of money, because you'll have to film enough scenes to make something like ten movies. But in the same times, there will be so many different movies, that you can expect people to go see it more than once, and to pay more than actually to have it at home. Therefore, it should payback.
But then, a question will have to be asked: Will the viewer be facing an interactive movie, or will he be facing a game with a very high image quality ?
One can argue that, since he's looking this in a theater, and therefore it's not just his decision that matter, it's not a game. Or that it's a movie, because you can still look at it passively, relying on the choice made (or not) by the others. But soon enough, this technology will reach our homes, we'll see a new generation of DVD players invade the living-rooms. And suddenly, because the experience will be lived alone, the movie will become a game ? What was art one hour ago, because it was still a movie, should now stop to be art, because it became a video game ?
What lead to another interesting question: If there's a possibility in the future for a game to be seen as art, because it was initially made as a movie, why nowadays video games can't be, now or later, sometimes, seen as art ?
What don't mean that all video game are, or will be, art. Just that, the more I think about it, the more this "never ever be" looks foolish.
, otherwise I would just get mad, but I am not here to troll. I mean these thigns. (I am not on twitter though)
